Friday, August 29, 2008

Pelosi and Her Lies, Part Infinity

I thought I'd quit on Pelosi, but since she is Speaker of the House, you really have to point out when she speaks with a forked tongue.

Earlier this week, she claimed to be an "ardent, practising Catholic." Really? Then why does she support abortion? To be ardent is to have intense feeling, or be intensely devoted, eager or enthusiastic. And she says she understands that the position of the Church is that life begins at conception. But she supports abortion. The Church does not.

I'm not sure you can be an "ardent, practising Catholic," and support abortion, especially abortion on demand, regardless of whether it's a woman's right to choose.

This is Relativism at its best.

One more example of why I do not trust liberals.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Political Burnout

This has been the longest campaign of all time. I'm just burned out. If you haven't made up your mind after almost 18 months of this crap, then you just can't think clearly. I made mine up. What about you? And I don't give a damn about the conventions. I'm on political vacation. Pelosi can do it, so why can't I.

So here's a couple of videos you might enjoy, just to remind us all of what is really important. (I served in the Air Force from 1971 to 1996. The man in these videos was the greatest commander-in-chief during that time.)

Ronald Reagan - A Time for Choosing (October 27, 1964)

President Reagan - Government is the problem

Friday, August 22, 2008

More Lunacy from the Left

Thomas Jefferson, about 1800, wrote: "[A] wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

Here's a commentator from San Francisco: "How can any progressive vote for someone who won't vow to defend the Constitution by reversing all of President Bush's abuses of power and by prosecuting those who have committed crimes in the White House? How can any progressive vote for someone who favors a puny 20 percent tax on dividends and capital gains?"

How far we've fallen from the principles that have made us great, mostly in the name of "progress." But all is not lost. Here is how one reader responded:

God forbid an American politician should advocate a careful disengagement from Iraq! The gall of a candidate who will not pledge to rip most of the earned profits/income from the pockets of individuals and companies who have done well for themselves! How dare he vow to send more troops to rid the Taliban and Al Qaeda of an Afghan safe haven! Are you kidding me? Get real.

And another:

The only thing I "consume" is the wisdom of this nation's founding fathers. That includes an abiding faith in the dynamism, opportunity, and beauty of a nation in which individuals are free to choose their own paths in life unhindered from government, and are responsible for their own failings.Sen. Obama wishes to alter that fundamental precept, by vilifying those who have wealth as if it is somehow at the expense of those who do not.

And one more:

Lindorff clearly doesn't understand politics or America for that matter. The people do NOT want a FAR LEFT President. Liberals do, hence the Primary struggle to be more Socialist than everyone else. 0bama is falling behind because isn't a viable candidate. We are all learning more about him and we don't like what we see. He is a fraud, like Edwards, like Kerry, like Gore (who lost), like the Clintons...he is more of the same the Left has to offer. What are you San Fran nuts and berries going to do when he loses?

Unfortunately, there are almost as many nuts on the left, who continue with their mantra:
McBush is just another corporate puppet mouthing the words written for him to speak. He's intellectual equivalent of gomer pyle and about as charismatic. All the corporate lackeys mouthing off about "liberalism" wouldn't recognize the Constitution if they sat on it. Calling Obama a socialist is not only stupid, it's wrong.

So on and on, the same old thing. But there is hope. We need to keep working. Many will never get it, but some will. That is all we can ask for.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Sheer Lunancy From the Left

Again, Robert Sheer, who once worked for the leftist LA Times, provides us with insight into the liberal mind. I commented on his 4th of July editorial, and he continues with his rants against sane, conservative polices with his usual irrational understanding of reality.

In his latest op-ed of Aug 20th, he spews forth more of his liberal talking points. His premiss for arguments are not based on facts. Let's look at some:

There you have it — in a capsule, the McCain campaign for president, an irrational melange of patriotic swagger and blindness to reality that is proving disturbingly successful with uninformed voters. How else to explain the many millions of Americans who tell pollsters they prefer a continuation of Republican rule when so many of them are losing their homes to foreclosure and the nation is bankrupted by out-of-control military spending.

The economy is in a downward spiral, the national debt is at an all-time high, the dollar is an international disgrace, and inflation in July had the steepest rise in 27 years, driven by oil prices fivefold higher than when President Bush invaded the nation with the world's second-largest petroleum reserves.

First of all, Sheer hates anything doing with patriotism, so he uses this quite frequently in his criticism of Republicans, and Americans in general, in this case "patriotic swagger and blindness." On July 4th, it was "patriotic bluster and beer swilling."

To us "uninformed voters," of course, being a liberal elitist, he doesn't believe we can choose for ourselves. That's one of the problems with America today -- we don't let the liberal elite run everything, you know?

He then leads you to believe that "so many" Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure, because you know, those damned neocons are cheating them out of their homes, you know. He doesn't say that, but you know that's what he means. But the fact is that these people are losing their homes because they made bad decisions. The government, many years ago, allowed lenders to lend to just about anybody -- didn't matter if they could repay -- so here we are with the consequences.

Then our national debt is due to out-of-control military spending. Oh? Really? Is it out of control? Or is it at the level we need to protect ourselves, unlike the attacks we suffered in the 1990s and on Sept 11, 2001? What's out of control is social spending, which has gone up much faster than military spending. But welfare programs, income redistribution, in fact, socialism is O.K.

Of course, the price of oil is Bush's fault. And since this is Bush's fault, our economy, inflation, etc is also Bush's fault. This is something I'm really tired of hearing. I just don't understand this Bush hatred, when any honest thinking human knows that all of our problems aren't the fault of one man.

Later in his editorial, while admitting to the victory in Iraq, Sheer has to disqualify it by bringing up our experience in Vietnam and that "victory is not all it's cracked up to be." Really? I guess victories, like World War II aren't important either. Or any of the other "victories" our military has managed to accomplish.

He reminds us of how Nixon rejected the neoconservative addiction to the cold war by his policy of detente with the Soviets and Chinese. Yet, Nixon really accomplished very little. The threat from these two communist regimes remained just a real as ever, and even more so to smaller countries, such as Afghanistan. Only when Reagan used neoconservative policies in the 1980s did he finally end the cold war.

And of course, our efforts against Islamic fundamentalists is "absurdly misdirected." We shouldn't spend more for national defense, oh no. This won't make us stronger. "Vote for McCain, and forget about funding to solve the Social Security, Medicare and subprime mortgage disasters or anything else that truly would make America stronger," he concludes.

Certainly, Mr. Sheer. Medicare, subprime mortgages and Social Security will certainly beat back the terrorists and other assorted bad guys from attacking our citizens, our properties and our freedoms.

This is dangerous thinking. Americans need to wake up and fight for the freedoms we have, because there are too many people willing -- like Mr. Sheer -- to give them away, or others who want to take them away.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Journalists vs. Bloggers

I get my information from both, and I don't trust either, really. Once a journalist myself, I still try to abide the two-source rule. My editors held fast on that: if I couldn't corroborate information from a second source, not matter how juicy it might be, we didn't run it.

I don't think most bloggers are that diligent.

Bill O'Reilly makes the distinction.

What journalists do, which many bloggers have yet to learn, is to consult multiple sources and do fact checking before blurting out a story. But what bloggers do, which journalists have yet to learn, is to wear their biases on their sleeve, rather than pretending they don’t exist.

I'm not sure he's totally right about today's journalist consulting multiple sources all the time, and I'm not sure he's totally right about bloggers either.

If we had the best of both worlds -- due diligence and open bias -- it would be easier to know how close we are to the actual reality of the situation.

Friday, August 15, 2008

What's Next?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this country, pretty much now taken over by the liberals, is in sad shape, and getting worse. Obama keeps talking change, but the change he wants is not what we need. Because the libs have taken over our school system, no one is learning how to survive in this world...unless it's at the teat of big government.

It's no longer ask what you can do for your country. Now everyone asks what their country can do for us. But, because no on can think clearly anymore, they don't realize that we are the government, at least those of us who work hard to get ahead.

Here's some events that should make you puke:

Dallas Educrats Promote Slacking Off
The idiocracy has taken another small step toward its goal of reducing Americans to ignorant, useless, government-dependent farm animals that can be raised for votes the way chickens are raised for eggs:

Dallas public school students who flunk tests, blow off homework and miss assignment deadlines can make up the work without penalty, under new rules that have angered many teachers.

Home Depot, Others Required To Make Day Laborer Shelters
Big-box, home-improvement stores in Los Angeles will have to set aside space for day laborers under an ordinance passed by the City Council on Wednesday.

When the ordinance takes effect -- the mayor has to sign it, and most city laws take effect 30 days afterward -- it will apply to stores such as The Home Depot that have 100,000 square feet or more, or any structure where 250,000 square feet or more of warehouse floor area is added.

The shelters must be easily accessible and include drinking water, bathrooms, tables, seating and trashcans. The stores may be required to work with Los Angeles police in developing a security plan, according to the unanimous vote by the 15-member lawmaking body.

People who live near Home Depot stores have complained of day laborers drinking beer, urinating in yards or other unseemly behavior.

The Netroots: America And Georgia To Blame For Russia's War Of Aggression
Liberals, being liberals, make certain assumptions when it comes to foreign affairs. Among them are,

#1) Whatever happens in the world, if it's bad, must somehow be the fault of the Bush Administration and/or America.

#2) Any country that is allied with America, by virtue of being allied with America, must be in the wrong if it gets into a conflict with a nation that is not allied with America.

That brings us to Russia's war of aggression on'll be amazed at the comments John Hawkins at Right Wing News has found. Read the whole story here.

Democrats and National Defense

The Democrats will try to convince you that they are strong on national defense. Don't believe a word of it. Why? Since Nixon got us out of Vietnam (which was a Democrat-sponsored disaster), Democrats have been weak on national defense. Carter and Clinton. Just read the history. I'm not going to teach it to you.

One of the themes of the Democract convention this year will be how they will make American strong. And safer. Their policies won't work. Never have, never will.

Here's what Obama has been saying:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems

I will slow development of future combat systems

I will not weaponize space

I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending

I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons...and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons...

I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material...

I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert...and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

Nice idealistic goals or policies, but they don't work in the real world, with all the bad guys running around.

I really have a problem with the first two statements above. We need a missile defense system. What started with Reagan has finally come to fruition. Having only offensive systems to strike back after you've been nuked never made sense to me. And slowing development of future systems? What does he mean by slow? Makes me as nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

Just don't believe the Democrats will make you safer. I served in the military during Carter's term, and Clinton's first term. I know how they treated the military.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Ethanol Hurts Worse Than It Helps

I recently noticed a drop in my gas mileage. I'm always very aware of what my gas mileage is all the time, and having an on-board computer to monitor it helps. A drop in gas mileage can indicate a problem with your vehicle before anything else, in some cases.

I drive Buick LeSabre, just for reference here. Last summer on a road trip to Michigan, I averaged 34 mpg. In March, on a trip down to the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, I got 35 mpg, probably because I wasn't using the air conditioner.

Recently, however, I've noticed my gas mileage dropping. I took it in for an oil change, air filter, tire pressures, etc, but not much changed. Only then did I realize that for the past several weeks I've been using gasoline that contains 10 percent ethanol. My mileage on the highway is down about 4 mpg. So I then examined my wife's truck, a Dodge RAM 1500 with a big hemi V8, and her mileage is down too, from about 15.8 to 14.5 mpg average.

So an 8 to 11 percent drop in gas mileage is not helping, is it? I guess inflating our tires for a 3 percent gain is a moot point now.

For those of you who support ethanol use as a replacement for gasoline, consider what the Houston Chronicle says about it, and then do your own independent research. I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

As for lessening dependence on foreign oil and cleaning the air, ethanol does little for either. It takes almost as much energy from power plants, diesel fuel and fertilizer to grow the corn, refine it and distribute it to gasoline blenders as ethanol gives out when it is burned. The fertilizer runoff creates a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. If the electricity used to refine the corn comes from a coal-fired plant, ethanol hikes pollution and carbon emissions.

Why is ethanol so popular with politicians, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama? (Sen. John McCain opposes ethanol subsidies.) Presidential candidates want to win the Iowa caucuses. In Congress, like-minded farm-state legislators represent a significant voting block.

Perhaps one day the United States will have a rational policy on energy and environmental protection. But not before it ends the destructive and disruptive rules designed to please farmers and corn refiners regardless of the consequences to the rest of the world.

The forced-use of ethanol has been one of the worst edicts from our government in recent memory, and is just another example of how government meddling hurts us.

Pelosi to Back Down? Don't Bet On It

The Hill, and other media outlets, reported this morning that Pelosi may just back down from her no-drilling, no-where, no-how policy.

Republicans, reacting to high gas prices, have demanded a vote on additional oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf, where drilling is currently blocked by a moratorium. Until now, Pelosi (D-Calif.) has resisted the idea as a “hoax.” But in an interview on CNN’s Larry King Live, she indicated that she was open to a vote.

“They have this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas,” Pelosi said. “We can do that. We can have a vote on that.”

She indicated such a vote would have to be part of a larger package that included other policies, like releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which she said could bring down prices in a matter of days.

“But it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and is not just a hoax on them,” Pelosi continued.

She even indicated that she might support a package that includes drilling. She said her decision on whether to support such legislation would depend on how the policies are packaged.

“It’s not excluded, let’s put it that way,” Pelosi said.

But don't get too excited, partner. While Pelosi is on Larry King (does anyone watch Larry King anymore?) her staff is hard at work to prevent her from flip-flopping.

The last sentence in the story:

"But her aides later released a statement saying she was not announcing a change in her stance on a drilling vote."

So it's a wait and see, I guess.

In the meantime, Rep. Steny Hoyer and some other liberals are making a meaningless stink about this statement that House Minority Leader John Boehner made in an interview with Politico:

"She's gonna bring us back and not deal with it? The American people are gonna hang her," Boehner said. When pressed further, Boehner said it would "be fine, as long as we get a vote on our bill."

Hoyer objected to the implied violence.

There was no violence implied. He meant in his interview that "the voters will make her pay in November."

It's funny when a liberal or Democrat says something or does something (like Edwards), the media play it down, make it seem ok (this is called cultural relativism). But if a conservative or Republican says something...then OMG, the sky is falling. How dare those evil conservatives say something like that. Double standard? You bet. Are liberals all about freedom of speech? You bet. But only if you agree with them. Otherwise, shut up.

What I find immensely interesting in the whole affair is how one person, in a republic such as ours, can hold up a policy vote on an important issue such as energy. These are the same folks who used to filibuster Bush's court nominations.

It's kind of like children who don't get their own way. They stomp out of the room.

And some people call George Bush a tryant. Most likely those folks are admiring Pelosi. That is truly deranged.

For a couple of other interesting posts on this whole energy mess, see Combatting Myths About Offshore Drilling and Top 10 Energy Questions For Speaker Pelosi.

Monday, August 11, 2008

So Much For Civility

Barack Obama promised a different kind of campaign, a campaign of civility.

Nancy Pelosi promised a different kind of Congress, a Congress of civility.

We have neither. Pelosi is off selling books, after turning off the lights on Capitol Hill. She refuses a debate on the House floor over energy. Refuses to allow an up-or-down vote, probably because she knows she'll lose. While 80 percent of the American voters (at least thosed polled) think we should do more domestic drilling, as part of a more comprehensive program, she refuses to allow it.

Barack is not delivering a new or different kind of politics. It's the same ol' thing: pandering for votes, adjusting position based on polls, a Clintonesque rewriting of history to suit his purpose. And now that he's come out and called Republicans "liars" and "ignorant" we know what his definiton of civility is in his mind.

And a day doesn't go buy I don't read some liberal blogger or commentor using the term "neocon" as white bigots used to use the N-word decades ago (or rappers still do). Neocon has become the degratory putdown by liberals, without even understanding where the term, or concept, came from. As once said, "a neoconservative is a liberal with a good dose of reality." So go ahead, put us down. Make our day. You only prove your own ignorance.

The mindset of these people: "If only we, the smart, sophisticated and intelligent people are in charge, we will tell you how you should live your lives, because we know best." This is basic socialism 101. The main difference between liberal and conversative these days is that liberals want more government intervention in our lives, conservatives want less.

You make the choice. But remember, you'll have to live with it. Once government gets its claws stuck in your business, you'll never shake it off.

Friday, August 8, 2008

Forget Oil, For Just a Moment

While everyone is obsessed with oil, gas prices, and generally the vitriolic energy debate, we should step back for a moment and ponder what else has been going on in the the country and the world. And no, I don't mean the Olympics.

First of all, the "so-called" war on terror is still on-going. I used the left-wing phrase "so-called" because I don't think the left, even to this day, see it was a war, but more of a police action to track down criminals. Of course, some one the far left, including some university profs, see the jihadist terrorist as a sort of freedom fighter.

But in July alone, there were more than 200 attacks by Islamic militants around the world, so the fight continues. Thankfully, not here. Not yet, anyway.

Obama is still running for President...but yea, we knew that from the energy "fill your tires" debate. But as more and more information about him surfaces, his numbers fall. He is, after all, really a left-wing elistist. He really doesn't think America is such a great place, and I firmly believe he wants to change it drastically. Do a little research on what he means by "economic justice."

Pelosi continues her book tour, not selling many books, but exciting what few fans she has. You might want to check out reader reviews on, which are about 10 to 1 against buying the book. Most describe it as vacuous. Nancy is quite the artist of using a lot of words to say nothing much at all.

The economy, while not without its challenges, continues to grow, though a much smaller rate than we'd like. There are weaknesses, but these always happen from time to time as our markets realign themselves. We've had bubbles burst before, and if you pay attention, you'll make it through. But part of life is adjusting to reality.

And in the meantime, gas prices have dropped about 50 cents per gallon, at least where I live (which is along the Red River, the border between Texas and Oklahoma). That's a little better. So there is something to be said about bubbles bursting, the prices too high for the market to bear, and supply and demand psychology. Not that Pelosi or her supporters will admit.

So we should all take some deep breaths, like the buy on, drinkingwithbob. His presentation is a little drastic, but he makes sense, and after his "what's next, what's next, what's next" closing, he too takes a few deep breaths.

We still live in the most prosperous and free nation on the planet -- that has ever existed. We're not perfect yet. So after taking a moment to appreciate that we are blessed to live here, let's get back to work, shall we?

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Stop Harrassing Big Oil, Bill

I'm tired of hearing Bill O'Reilly accuse the oil companies of screwing Americans. While I generally like the Factor, I don't watch it as much as I used to, because most of his guests are idiots. But I did catch a recent report where he called on the oil companies to contribute 2 percent of their profits into a general fund to help the poor heat and/or cool their homes.

Karl Rove was his guest to analyze. First of all, Rove is correct in saying that government should not impose penalties. And he also stated that oil companies generally only make 8 cents on the dollar in net profit. Also fairly accurate. Rove finally agree that oil companies contributing to charity isn't a bad idea -- just don't make it mandatory. Rove wins the debate with Bill, at least by my account.

Over the last 10 years, ExxonMobil has averaged 9.7 percent. Still low compared to other industries, but higher than some. The 8 cents on the dollar may be true for all oil companies -- I didn't do the math on that yet. But I like to be precise. When we're talking billions of dollars, a few percentage points is a lot of money.

However, the Christian Science Monitor reported today:

In the first quarter of 2008, Big Oil had a profit margin of 7.4 percent. Over that same period, the pharmaceutical and medicine industry earned a 25.9 percent profit, the chemical industry earned 15.7 percent and the electronic equipment industry earned 12.1 percent.

Bill keeps bringing up the fact that Exxon made 80 billion dollars (or is that the top five; it's hard to keep it straight). He fails to mention the dividends returned to shareholders ($43 billion for the top five), and the taxes these companies already pay.

Should the oil companies contribute 2 percent of the net profits to the poor for heating and cooling? I don't want government to impose that, but donating money to the poor is always a good idea, and could be good P.R.

Bill, why don't you set up a non-profit? Put your money where your mouth is. I'll contribute. Let everyone, including getting the oil companies to make tax-deductible contributions.

Better yet. I think I'll do it myself. And Bill, you better contribute, with money and publicity. Then maybe you can quit trashing Big Oil.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

A Few Comments From Others

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
“My message to Democratic lawmakers is this: if you’re really for increased American energy production, then prove it by putting it in writing. Sign the discharge petitions House Republicans are circulating that will force votes on energy legislation Speaker Pelosi refuses to bring to the floor. And sign onto the American Energy Act, our ‘all of the above’ plan to increase conservation, innovation, and American energy production, instead of doing the Speaker’s bidding by voting against bringing it to a vote. If you aren’t willing to put it in writing, you’re fooling no one. You’re siding with the Speaker of the Drill-Nothing Congress and radical special interests that favor higher gas prices, at the expense of energy-strapped American families.”

“This cynical strategy is disgustingly dishonest. Without any real solutions to help Americans who are struggling with record-high gas prices, it appears the Democratic leadership has hit on a new plan: deceive. Deceive the press, deceive its members, and deceive the American people. Democratic members have a ‘pass’ from their leaders to talk about drilling at home, while the liberal Democratic leadership – which is beholden to special interests that want higher gas prices – plays ‘rope-a-dope’ back in Washington, ensuring there is no vote to help the American people before November. It’s cynical, dishonest, and wrong – and it won’t work.”

Michelle Malkin
While Madame Speaker advises America's daughters that "you have to know what you're talking about, you can't grandstand," she gave a pitiful performance on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" when pressed to explain her stonewalling of up-or-down votes on energy bills.

In classic grandstanding style, Pelosi mischaracterized GOP proposals as drilling-only, blustered about drilling not having an immediate effect on lowering gas prices, criticized Republicans for not divining the right parliamentary moves to get their legislative plans through, and then sniffed imperiously that "they'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote."

Frank James
Pelosi, a California Democrat, accused Republicans of being monomaniacal on the drilling issue and of suggesting to voters that drilling would immediately lower gas prices. She wasn't going to play along with something that would mislead voters, she asserted.

Here's the problem with that. Anyone who has listened to the debate has heard House Republicans say they are willing to consider a range of options from the use of renewable energy sources to new alternative fuels to conservation so long as they can get a vote on off-shore drilling.

Newt Gingrich
Nancy Pelosi is not the only member of the anti-energy left looking desperate.

In an urgent email sent to their members last week, the far Left activist group wrote about the national debate over how to best lower gas and energy prices, "Here's the truth: Right now, progressives are losing this argument."

They're right. We are winning and the Left is losing the argument over our country's energy future because Americans know that thirty years of their policies has led to the current mess.

For decades, anti-energy, left-wing politicians have advocated higher prices and less energy. They were going to save the environment by punishing Americans into driving less and driving smaller cars. They favor a policy of no oil and gas exploration, no use of coal, and no development of nuclear power.

The result has been that over the last three decades, America has relied more and more on foreign oil rather than American oil, and our nation's power grid has been stretched thin because litigation and regulation has made it so difficult to build new sources of electricity.

The American people can see this, so they're rejecting the Left's philosophy of less energy and inconvenience in favor of a pro-investment, pro-creativity, pro-production, and pro-conservation energy coalition.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

USA Today Gets It, But Then Blows It

USA Today, in an editorial, proved that it understood the strategy of energy, as well of the tactics. But then, by allowing a counter-point article that used false information in the lead, hurt the paper's credibility.

While USA Today accuses the Republicans of overselling the drill-now policy, which may have some merit, the goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil supplies. And they came out against Obama's tax policies.

What USA Today thinks, and I agree, is that we need a comprehensive energy policy: drill more oil and gas, more nuclear energy, clean coal, wind and solar, better conservation. It will take all.

Then Carl Pope, the Director of the Sierra Club, states in his opposing view: "But the big oil companies and their friends in Congress continue to offer just one answer to our energy problems — more oil drilling." This is the second sentence and is blantantly untrue. The Republicans are trying to put forth an comprehensive plan, called the American Energy Plan, but Pelosi is blocking this because it also includes provisions for drilling.

I feel I have to point out this when I see anyone using false information to further their points.

And that's what Carl Pope and his comrades are doing.

Windfall Profits and Pelosi's Myths

Obama has proposed a windfall profits tax. This is not the first time we've heard this. Hillary Clinton also said once she wanted to go after the oil companies. Let's penalize free market capaitalism. It's been tried before, and while it might make some folks feel good, it didn't work then, and wouldn't work now.

This is what the Economist had to say recently:

Mr Obama says that he would tax oil firms for “windfall profits”, and give motorists a rebate ($1,000 for families, $500 for individuals). Such a populist gesture might go down well with voters, but imposing a windfall tax would cause uncertainty in the oil industry and divert funds from investment in production of more oil, thus contributing to higher prices. Another suggestion, to release some oil from the strategic reserve, would bring a temporary benefit at best.

Of course, Obama and the rest of his ilk really do believe in income restribution, so that's no surprise. Take ExxonMobil. It's sales are staggering, some $116 billion last quarter. Its profit margin was about 9.7%. Over the last 10 years, Exxon has averaged 7.7% profit, from a low of about 4% to a high of 10.4%.

Everyone is yelling about huge profits, and they may be historic, but then again so is the price of oil, due to the shrinking spread between supply and demand and the speculation it causes in the markets. But the dividends these compaines are paying are equally outstanding. Exxon, Chevron, BP, Total and Royal Dutch and ConocoPhillips paid nearly $43 billion in dividends last year. And they've been buying back shares, which increases stockholder value (if you pay $1 billion in dividends, but there are fewer shares, each shareholder gets more of the dividend pie).

Regular people, like you and me, own these companies, either directly as stockholders, or through our retirement accounts, 401Ks, insurance programs, state retirement funds, etc.

So this is not such a bad deal. If it's so horrible that Exxon make 9 percent profit, why is no one yelling about other companies, like Microsoft, which makes nearly 30 percent profit. Where's the outcry?

So Obama and Pelosi have a no-drill policy. No debate allowed on the house floor. Turn off the lights, and let's go home.

Then during the weekend, she was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. She continues with her ignorant myths. Anyone with the ability to read, investigate and think clearly can see that developing more of ALL of our resources is the answer short-term and long-term.

But Obama and Pelosi are elitists and don't care about you. Let's save the planet, while destroying America. That will solve all of our problems.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Must Reads for the Day

It seems Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and I think alike. And I'm not going to quit pounding on Nancy Pelosi's destructive policy of no drilling, until ANWAR, Offshore Oil, and Rocky Mountain shale is open for new exploration.

Pelosi: Save the Planet, Let Someone Else Drill
The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.

Dems Stop Approps Bills To Block GOP Energy Push
Blame it on a delayed Fiscal Year 2009 budget, on a long fight over funding for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, presidential veto threats or over energy issues Republicans are using to score political points: This year, Democrats have no plans to finish as many as ten of the twelve annual appropriations bills before Congress adjourns.

The Democrats’ Drill-Nothing Congress Going Home
By blocking a vote to increase American energy production, Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Barack Obama (D-IL), have proven how amazingly out-of-touch with the American people they really are.

The ‘60s Won’t Go Away
Those who protested some 40 years ago often still congratulate themselves that their loud zeal alone brought needed "change" to America in civil rights, the environment, women's liberation and world peace. Maybe. But critics counter that the larger culture that followed was the most self-absorbed in memory.

No Credit Where Credit Is Due
President Bush came into office promising he would govern with his own style of compassionate conservatism. And he's largely lived up to that promise, but he gets little or no credit. Aid to Africa is only one aspect of that compassion. This week, an annual report to Congress on homelessness in the United States reports a historic drop in the number of chronically homeless people over a two-year period: a 30 percent decline between 2005 and 2007.

Change We Can Believe In
KABUL, Afghanistan -- This place should have had real appeal to Sen. Barack Obama. The poverty of the Afghan people is evident everywhere. Racked by decades of Soviet occupation, civil war and an oppressive Taliban theocracy, the country is a veritable centerpiece for one of Obama's legislative objectives: a frontal assault on global poverty.